The parking operator issued the parking charge notice because the appellant’s vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.
The appellant explained that they were at home at the time and believed their registration plates had been copied. Because of this, they had reported this to the police and obtained a crime number.
POPLA considered the appellant’s grounds of appeal and examined the evidence provided by the parking operator, which included copies of the signs at the car park and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera images of the entry and exit of the car bearing the appellant’s number plate. The make and model of the vehicle captured by the cameras was also the same as recorded by the DVLA.
The car park had a maximum stay of one hour and our review of the ANPR images clearly showed the car remaining on the car park for longer than the maximum stay.
The appellant’s version of events was light on detail. The operator had already sent the images of the vehicle captured by the ANPR cameras and the motorist had not explained the differences between that vehicle and their own. Nor had the appellant provided evidence that they had reported this matter to the police, or details of the crime reference number they say they received.
POPLA refused the appeal. The appellant’s claim lacked detail and was not backed up by evidence. The operator’s evidence showed that a vehicle of the same make and model as the appellants, with the same number plate, had overstayed the maximum stay allowed in the car park. The evidence pointed to this being the appellant’s vehicle and them being responsible for the Parking Charge Notice.